Preservation methods of honey bee-collected pollen are not a source of bias in ITS2 metabarcoding

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Quaresma, Andreia
Data de Publicação: 2021
Outros Autores: Brodschneider, Robert, Gratzer, Kristina, Gray, Alison, Keller, Alexander, Kilpinen, Ole, Rufino, José, Steen, Jozef van der, Vejsnæs, Flemming, Pinto, M. Alice
Tipo de documento: Artigo
Idioma: eng
Título da fonte: Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
Texto Completo: http://hdl.handle.net/10198/24219
Resumo: Pollen metabarcoding is emerging as a powerful tool for ecological research and offers unprecedented scale in citizen science projects for environmental monitoring via honey bees. Biases in metabarcoding can be introduced at any stage of sample processing and preservation is at the forefront of the pipeline. While in metabarcoding studies pollen has been preserved at − 20 °C (FRZ), this is not the best method for citizen scientists. Herein, we compared this method with ethanol (EtOH), silica gel (SG) and room temperature (RT) for preservation of pollen collected from hives in Austria and Denmark. After ~ 4 months of storage, DNAs were extracted with a food kit, and their quality and concentration measured. Most DNA extracts exhibited 260/280 absorbance ratios close to the optimal 1.8, with RT samples from Austria performing slightly worse than FRZ and SG samples (P < 0.027). Statistical differences were also detected for DNA concentration, with EtOH samples producing lower yields than RT and FRZ samples in both countries and SG in Austria (P < 0.042). Yet, qualitative and quantitative assessments of floral composition obtained using high-throughput sequencing with the ITS2 barcode gave non-significant effects of preservation methods on richness, relative abundance and Shannon diversity, in both countries. While freezing and ethanol are commonly employed for archiving tissue for molecular applications, desiccation is cheaper and easier to use regarding both storage and transportation. Since SG is less dependent on ambient humidity and less prone to contamination than RT, we recommend SG for preserving pollen for metabarcoding. SG is straightforward for laymen to use and hence robust for widespread application in citizen science studies.
id RCAP_de566a051c15429e264060cb37604a90
oai_identifier_str oai:bibliotecadigital.ipb.pt:10198/24219
network_acronym_str RCAP
network_name_str Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
repository_id_str 7160
spelling Preservation methods of honey bee-collected pollen are not a source of bias in ITS2 metabarcodingDNA metabarcodingPollenDNA barcodingPreservation biasSilica gelPreservationCitizen sciencePollen metabarcoding is emerging as a powerful tool for ecological research and offers unprecedented scale in citizen science projects for environmental monitoring via honey bees. Biases in metabarcoding can be introduced at any stage of sample processing and preservation is at the forefront of the pipeline. While in metabarcoding studies pollen has been preserved at − 20 °C (FRZ), this is not the best method for citizen scientists. Herein, we compared this method with ethanol (EtOH), silica gel (SG) and room temperature (RT) for preservation of pollen collected from hives in Austria and Denmark. After ~ 4 months of storage, DNAs were extracted with a food kit, and their quality and concentration measured. Most DNA extracts exhibited 260/280 absorbance ratios close to the optimal 1.8, with RT samples from Austria performing slightly worse than FRZ and SG samples (P < 0.027). Statistical differences were also detected for DNA concentration, with EtOH samples producing lower yields than RT and FRZ samples in both countries and SG in Austria (P < 0.042). Yet, qualitative and quantitative assessments of floral composition obtained using high-throughput sequencing with the ITS2 barcode gave non-significant effects of preservation methods on richness, relative abundance and Shannon diversity, in both countries. While freezing and ethanol are commonly employed for archiving tissue for molecular applications, desiccation is cheaper and easier to use regarding both storage and transportation. Since SG is less dependent on ambient humidity and less prone to contamination than RT, we recommend SG for preserving pollen for metabarcoding. SG is straightforward for laymen to use and hence robust for widespread application in citizen science studies.We are deeply indebted to Susana Lopes and Maria Magalhães, from CIBIO—Research Centre in Biodiversity and Genetic Resources—InBIO Associate Laboratory, for their time devoted to library preparation and sequencing in the MiSeq. AQ acknowledges the PhD scholarship (DFA/BD/5155/2020) funded by FCT. This work was funded by the Health and Food Safety Directorate General, European Commission through the project INSIGNIA—Environmental monitoring of pesticide use through honeybees SANTE/E4/SI2.788418-SI2.788452- INSIGINIA-PP-1–1-2018. Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia (FCT) provided financial support by national funds (FCT/MCTES) to CIMO (UIDB/00690/2020).Biblioteca Digital do IPBQuaresma, AndreiaBrodschneider, RobertGratzer, KristinaGray, AlisonKeller, AlexanderKilpinen, OleRufino, JoséSteen, Jozef van derVejsnæs, FlemmingPinto, M. Alice2021-11-17T15:53:01Z20212021-01-01T00:00:00Zinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/articleapplication/pdfhttp://hdl.handle.net/10198/24219engQuaresma, Andreia; Brodschneider, Robert; Gratzer, Kristina; Gray, Alison; Keller, Alexander; Kilpinen, Ole; Rufino, José; Steen, Jozef van der; Vejsnæs, Flemming; Pinto, M. Alice (2021). Preservation methods of honey bee-collected pollen are not a source of bias in ITS2 metabarcoding. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment. ISSN 0167-6369. 193:12, p. 1-200167-636910.1007/s10661-021-09563-4info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessreponame:Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)instname:Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informaçãoinstacron:RCAAP2023-11-21T10:54:07Zoai:bibliotecadigital.ipb.pt:10198/24219Portal AgregadorONGhttps://www.rcaap.pt/oai/openaireopendoar:71602024-03-19T23:15:04.141973Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) - Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informaçãofalse
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Preservation methods of honey bee-collected pollen are not a source of bias in ITS2 metabarcoding
title Preservation methods of honey bee-collected pollen are not a source of bias in ITS2 metabarcoding
spellingShingle Preservation methods of honey bee-collected pollen are not a source of bias in ITS2 metabarcoding
Quaresma, Andreia
DNA metabarcoding
Pollen
DNA barcoding
Preservation bias
Silica gel
Preservation
Citizen science
title_short Preservation methods of honey bee-collected pollen are not a source of bias in ITS2 metabarcoding
title_full Preservation methods of honey bee-collected pollen are not a source of bias in ITS2 metabarcoding
title_fullStr Preservation methods of honey bee-collected pollen are not a source of bias in ITS2 metabarcoding
title_full_unstemmed Preservation methods of honey bee-collected pollen are not a source of bias in ITS2 metabarcoding
title_sort Preservation methods of honey bee-collected pollen are not a source of bias in ITS2 metabarcoding
author Quaresma, Andreia
author_facet Quaresma, Andreia
Brodschneider, Robert
Gratzer, Kristina
Gray, Alison
Keller, Alexander
Kilpinen, Ole
Rufino, José
Steen, Jozef van der
Vejsnæs, Flemming
Pinto, M. Alice
author_role author
author2 Brodschneider, Robert
Gratzer, Kristina
Gray, Alison
Keller, Alexander
Kilpinen, Ole
Rufino, José
Steen, Jozef van der
Vejsnæs, Flemming
Pinto, M. Alice
author2_role author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
dc.contributor.none.fl_str_mv Biblioteca Digital do IPB
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Quaresma, Andreia
Brodschneider, Robert
Gratzer, Kristina
Gray, Alison
Keller, Alexander
Kilpinen, Ole
Rufino, José
Steen, Jozef van der
Vejsnæs, Flemming
Pinto, M. Alice
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv DNA metabarcoding
Pollen
DNA barcoding
Preservation bias
Silica gel
Preservation
Citizen science
topic DNA metabarcoding
Pollen
DNA barcoding
Preservation bias
Silica gel
Preservation
Citizen science
description Pollen metabarcoding is emerging as a powerful tool for ecological research and offers unprecedented scale in citizen science projects for environmental monitoring via honey bees. Biases in metabarcoding can be introduced at any stage of sample processing and preservation is at the forefront of the pipeline. While in metabarcoding studies pollen has been preserved at − 20 °C (FRZ), this is not the best method for citizen scientists. Herein, we compared this method with ethanol (EtOH), silica gel (SG) and room temperature (RT) for preservation of pollen collected from hives in Austria and Denmark. After ~ 4 months of storage, DNAs were extracted with a food kit, and their quality and concentration measured. Most DNA extracts exhibited 260/280 absorbance ratios close to the optimal 1.8, with RT samples from Austria performing slightly worse than FRZ and SG samples (P < 0.027). Statistical differences were also detected for DNA concentration, with EtOH samples producing lower yields than RT and FRZ samples in both countries and SG in Austria (P < 0.042). Yet, qualitative and quantitative assessments of floral composition obtained using high-throughput sequencing with the ITS2 barcode gave non-significant effects of preservation methods on richness, relative abundance and Shannon diversity, in both countries. While freezing and ethanol are commonly employed for archiving tissue for molecular applications, desiccation is cheaper and easier to use regarding both storage and transportation. Since SG is less dependent on ambient humidity and less prone to contamination than RT, we recommend SG for preserving pollen for metabarcoding. SG is straightforward for laymen to use and hence robust for widespread application in citizen science studies.
publishDate 2021
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2021-11-17T15:53:01Z
2021
2021-01-01T00:00:00Z
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv http://hdl.handle.net/10198/24219
url http://hdl.handle.net/10198/24219
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv Quaresma, Andreia; Brodschneider, Robert; Gratzer, Kristina; Gray, Alison; Keller, Alexander; Kilpinen, Ole; Rufino, José; Steen, Jozef van der; Vejsnæs, Flemming; Pinto, M. Alice (2021). Preservation methods of honey bee-collected pollen are not a source of bias in ITS2 metabarcoding. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment. ISSN 0167-6369. 193:12, p. 1-20
0167-6369
10.1007/s10661-021-09563-4
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv application/pdf
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv reponame:Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
instname:Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação
instacron:RCAAP
instname_str Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação
instacron_str RCAAP
institution RCAAP
reponame_str Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
collection Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
repository.name.fl_str_mv Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) - Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação
repository.mail.fl_str_mv
_version_ 1799135432129118208